Comparison Overview

Woodland Park Zoo

VS

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

Woodland Park Zoo

5500 Phinney Ave N, Seattle, 98103, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

For more than 110 years, Woodland Park Zoo has been a cherished community resource and a unique urban oasis. Generations of Puget Sound families have come to the zoo to marvel at the animals and be inspired by the peaceful and beautiful surroundings. Woodland Park Zoo is committed to attracting, developing and retaining highly qualified employees. As a 24/7 environment, we have a variety of career opportunities, including positions in animal management, development, education, facilities, horticulture, guest services, information technology, marketing, retail, security and more. At the zoo, employment is more than just a job. Employees are able to develop their appreciation of animals, the natural world and the need for conservation on a local and global level, while contributing their specific skills and talents to our mission: Woodland Park Zoo saves animals and their habitats through conservation leadership and engaging experiences, inspiring people to learn, care and act.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 513
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

3501 Lexington Rd, Harrodsburg, 40330, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill is a landmark destination that shares 3,000 acres of discovery in the spirit of the Kentucky Shakers. With 34 original Shaker structures, the site is home to the country’s largest private collection of original 19th century buildings and is the largest National Historic Landmark in Kentucky. This nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization encompasses The Inn, The Trustees' Table restaurant, Craft Shops, The Historic Centre with museum exhibitions and guided programs, The Farm, The Preserve and a number of other event venues and guest services.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 72
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/woodland-park-zoo.jpeg
Woodland Park Zoo
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shaker-village-of-pleasant-hill.jpeg
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Woodland Park Zoo
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Woodland Park Zoo in 2026.

Incidents vs Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill in 2026.

Incident History — Woodland Park Zoo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Woodland Park Zoo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/woodland-park-zoo.jpeg
Woodland Park Zoo
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shaker-village-of-pleasant-hill.jpeg
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Woodland Park Zoo company and Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Woodland Park Zoo company.

In the current year, Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company and Woodland Park Zoo company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor Woodland Park Zoo company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor Woodland Park Zoo company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor Woodland Park Zoo company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Woodland Park Zoo company employs more people globally than Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Woodland Park Zoo nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H